Following Schily's footsteps is the Interior Minister of Schleswig-Holstein. And once again, he resorts to polemics because the arguments are lacking.

The way in which the Interior Minister reacts to criticism from data protection authorities is increasingly disregarding a factual assessment and is limited to granting absolute priority to the police and law enforcement or general security. Data protection is thus equated with hindering law enforcement, and there is no interest in balancing the two. The maxim "Germany should become safe and free" is followed in such a way that there is no doubt which characteristic prevails here. Even if this security can only ever represent a false sense of security.

And this does not only affect Schleswig-Holstein; it can be felt throughout the federal territory - and in the idiotic attempts at the European level. It is not about accusing individual police officers of being scoundrels who only want to spy on their fellow citizens. It is not about accusing the police of not responsibly handling their means.

It is about the state having a position of power vis-à-vis the citizen, which is controlled and limited for very conscious reasons - and the legislative initiatives within the framework of the expansion of police powers lift this control and limitation. The police are not just any service provider - they are the executive arm of the executive - one of the three powers in our system. We already have far too close a connection between the legislature and the executive - every time the government arrogates itself the legislative power, I feel sick. The Bundestag is the legislature, not just the government (not even just the government coalition).

The control of the possibilities of the powers and the limitation of their power is a very essential aspect of a healthy state. A state in which the executive gains too much power moves away from this ideal line, develops sooner or later into a police state, into a surveillance state. It is not just about banal claims like "data protection = perpetrator protection" - that is ridiculous and polemical. It is about the rights of the individual citizen, about the possibility of shaping one's own life without a big brother constantly looking over one's shoulder. But exactly that is being done more and more in recent times - the installation of the big brother.

Data protection advocates and warning voices are not just world-remote cranks who don't want to see the problem - they are simply those who can already see today what is coming our way tomorrow. And it is frightening that we are only inadequately protected by the highest constitutional court - inadequately because even their decisions are attacked and ignored by politicians.

The warning against the all-powerful state is not paranoia, it is realism. We have had the all-powerful state quite often - and we have recently incorporated an incarnation of it. None of these all-powerful states really worked, all of them collapsed. But the people in these states had to suffer under them.